92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-29017
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 91-18 286 ) DATE
)
)
)
Sitting at Winston-Salem, North Carolina
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for a disability
claimed as blurred vision.
2. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic back
disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
William R. Harryman, Jr., Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The
veteran had honorable active service from July 1970 to April
1974. A rating decision in May 1990 denied the veteran
entitlement to the claimed benefits. A notice of
disagreement was received from him in June 1990, and the RO
issued a statement of the case the following month. The
veteran's substantive appeal was received in September
1990. At his request, a personal hearing was held before a
traveling section of the Board in April 1991. By a decision
in November 1991, the Board previously remanded this case
for further development of the record. A rating decision in
February 1992 confirmed the prior denials, and the RO issued
a supplemental statement of the case that same month.
The veteran has been represented throughout his appeal by
The American Legion, which has submitted additional written
argument on his behalf. Following completion of the
requested development, the case is again before the Board
for appellate consideration.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran asserts that he had trouble with blurred vision
and back pain during service, that his current symptoms are
related to those problems, and that, therefore, they should
be service connected.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104
(West 1991), following review and consideration of all the
evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims
file, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the
decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence
is against the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for a disability claimed as blurred vision and
for a chronic back disorder.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable
disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the
RO.
2. Blurred vision was not present during service or for
several years thereafter, nor does the evidence show any
inservice eye trauma or other eye disorder which might
reasonably have caused any blurred vision he might now have.
3. No chronic back disorder was present during service or
for many years thereafter, nor does the evidence show any
inservice back trauma or other back disorder which might
reasonably have led to his current back disorder.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A disability claimed as blurred vision was not incurred
in or aggravated by wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110,
5107 (West 1991).
2. A chronic back disorder was not incurred in or
aggravated by wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Initially, the Board notes that we have found that the
veteran's claims are "well-grounded" within the meaning of
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). That is, we find that he has
presented claims which are plausible. We are also satisfied
that all relevant facts have been properly developed. No
further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with
the duty to assist him mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
I. "Blurred Vision"
Service connection connotes many factors, but basically it
means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a
particular injury or disease resulting in disability was
incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if
preexisting such service, was aggravated therein.
38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1991).
The service medical records document that, upon service
entry, the veteran's uncorrected distant vision was 20/20 in
each eye and his uncorrected near vision was J-1 in each
eye. The records note that in February 1971 he was treated
for a stye of the right eye. The service medical records
are otherwise negative for complaints or clinical findings
consistent with any eye disorder. At the time of the
veteran's separation examination he denied having any
chronic eye trouble, and his uncorrected distant and near
vision were again noted to be 20/20 in each eye.
A private ophthalmologist noted in April 1979 the veteran's
report of a history of ophthalmic-migraine headache
syndrome. On examination, his vision was found to be
20/20 in each eye with no correction needed. The remainder
of the eye examination was also normal.
A private chiropractor reported in October 1986 the
veteran's complaint that migraine headaches would come on
because of stress. He also complained of blurred vision,
dizziness, and being tired. No pertinent clinical findings
were noted.
Another private ophthalmologist indicated in a letter dated
in April 1991 that he had first seen the veteran in 1980, at
which time the eye examination was normal, except for
borderline increased intraocular pressures. He also stated
that he had next seen the veteran in March 1981 following an
injury to his right eye. He was again seen in November 1983
following an injury to his left eye. The ophthalmologist
reported that his last full examination was in April 1986 at
which time the veteran's visual acuity was found to be
20/20 with no significant refractive error, but with some
blepharitis of unknown etiology, although an allergic origin
was considered.
Records from another private physician dated from April 1983
to August 1990 document complaints and clinical findings
consistent with chronic allergic rhinitis-sinusitis on
numerous occasions. Although the veteran did complain of
blurred vision on at least one occasion, no etiology other
than allergic rhinitis was assigned.
At his personal hearing, the veteran testified that he was
first treated for his complaints of headaches and blurred
vision in 1979. He also stated that no physician had yet
been able to establish a cause for that complaint, although
stress had apparently been advanced as a possible etiology.
The veteran also reported that he had never been diagnosed
as having any sort of defective vision and that he wore no
corrective lenses.
The evidence is clear in this case that, although the
veteran was treated on one occasion during service for an
acute eye infection, that infection apparently resolved
without any residual disability. By his own admission, the
veteran was not seen for complaints of blurred vision until
1979, several years after his separation from service. No
diagnosis, other than allergic rhinitis or possibly stress,
has been assigned. No examiner has indicated that any
current eye problem the veteran may now have is related in
any way to an incident occurring in service.
We conclude, then, that any blurred vision the veteran may
now have was not present during service or for several years
thereafter, and that any such blurred vision now present is
in no way related to an incident of service, especially in
the absence of any noted definite inservice or even current
eye pathology. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110.
II. Back Disorder
The service medical records show that the veteran was seen
on two occasions, in December 1971 and January 1972, for
complaints of low back pain. There was no numbness,
weakness, or paresthesia, or any other abnormal neurologic
finding. A diagnosis of lumbosacral strain was assigned.
No further back complaints were noted during service, and at
the time of his separation examination, the veteran reported
having no history of recurrent back pain. The examiner at
that time also reported no abnormal clinical findings
relative to the veteran's spine or musculoskeletal system.
The records of several private examiners dated from February
1983 to October 1990 contain no complaints referable to any
back disorder prior to March 1986. The records show that at
that time the veteran reported having injured his back
approximately eight weeks previously and that he had again
injured his back the preceding weekend while lifting. He
indicated that the pain was primarily on the left side of
his lower back, and without radiation. The examiner stated
that there were no radicular symptoms, no paresthesias, and
no muscle weakness. He further noted the veteran's report
of periodic back pain for the previous 14 years. On
examination, the straight leg raising test was markedly
positive bilaterally. The veteran was noted to be guarding
his movements to the left, and there was marked paraspinal
muscle spasm in the left lumbosacral area. The diagnosis
assigned was acute low back muscle strain. Complete bed
rest, local heat, and muscle relaxants were prescribed.
The medical records of a private orthopedist dated in
November 1986 confirm the above history and findings, but
further state that, although the veteran had had low back
pain in the past, his previous pain had never approached the
degree and nature of his current symptoms. Myelography
revealed the presence of a large herniated nucleus pulposus
at L4-5, with right L5 root involvement. He apparently
underwent a lumbar laminectomy in November 1986.
Other private medical records indicate that, following his
back surgery, the veteran reported dramatic improvement in
his symptoms. A record dated in December 1989, however,
notes the veteran's report of having recently reinjured his
back. He indicated that he was then undergoing some
physical therapy and that his back pain was improving. An
outpatient record dated in September 1990 indicates that the
veteran had recently obtained some exercise equipment and
had begun working out. At that time, he again noted the
onset of back and right leg pain. An MRI revealed the
presence of a small recurrent disc protrusion on the right
at L4-5.
At his personal hearing, the veteran recounted the two
inservice episodes of back pain. He recalled being totally
immobilized due to the pain. He also stated that within one
month after his separation from service, he had another
flareup of back pain. He testified that he was seen in 1979
by a private physician who diagnosed lower back strain.
(Although outpatient records were requested and obtained
from the physician indicated by the veteran, none dated
prior to 1983 was received.) The veteran further testified
to his subsequent back surgery. He also indicated that he
had lost one month off work due to his back pain during the
previous year.
Although the veteran has testified that his inservice back
symptoms required total immobilization, the service medical
records do not corroborate this assertion. Also, although
he testified that he was treated for recurrent back pain
within one month following his separation from service and
that he had periodic recurrences of the pain until a lumbar
laminectomy was necessitated in 1986, none of the
post-service medical records developed at the request of the
veteran note any complaints of pain attributable to any back
disorder from the time of his separation from service in
1974 until early 1986. While the veteran was treated twice
during service for complaints of back pain, the absence of
any complaints referable to his back for more than two years
prior to discharge from service, as well as the absence of
any complaints or clinical findings consistent with any
chronic back disorder at the time of the veteran's
separation examination, indicates that any back disorder
present during service was acute and transitory and resolved
without residual disability. This finding is strengthened
by the complete lack of medical evidence to corroborate the
veteran's report of periodically recurring back pain
following his separation from service until 1986.
While some probative weight is to be accorded the veteran's
hearing testimony, the total lack of medical evidence
corroborating his report of inservice incapacitation and of
persistent, recurring back pain since service substantially
reduces the credibility to be attached to that testimony.
It should be noted in this regard, that service connection
is not properly granted solely on the basis of reported
history. Our findings are further buttressed by medical
evidence documenting several intercurrent injuries to the
veteran's back beginning in early 1986, with all the
post-service evidence of back symptoms having been compiled
in conjunction with and after those injuries. In light of
the above evidence, we can find only that the veteran's back
and leg symptoms since 1986 are due solely to those
injuries, and that no chronic back disorder had its origins
during service.
Therefore, we conclude that service connection for a chronic
back disorder is not established. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110.
Although we have considered the doctrine of affording the
veteran the benefit of any existing doubt, the evidence on
each of the above issues is not so equally balanced to
permit application of the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(b).
ORDER
Service connection for a disability claimed as blurred
vision and for a chronic back disorder is denied.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
ALBERT D. TUTERA CHARLES W. SYMANSKI
38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of
Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of
the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business
without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the
Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three
Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or
inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on
the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section
proceed with the transaction of business, including the
issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a
third Member.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting
less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on
appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans
Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice
of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement
concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed
with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after
November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L.
No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the
face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and
the copy of this decision which you have received is your
notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals.